At least that's what the ILLEGAL immigrant lobby wants you to believe, but we know better don't we?
The review will continue, and officials expect during the first year to identify 700 to 800 gang members who are illegal immigrants, according to Jim Hayes, director of the Los Angeles field office for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
I think that number is very conservative. In fact P Buchanan notes in his book that the number of Mexican street gangs in Los Angeles is so huge that the bloods and the crips are uniting in order to combat them.
The focus on immigration status comes as the city of Los Angeles is calling on federal agencies to help it crack down in response to last year's 15.7% increase in gang crime.
15 comments:
I like illegal immigrants. They taste like chicken.
See Gary, you CAN be funny.
So you are saying the surge in illegal gang violence can be correlated to immigration?
Well I agree and know that its one of many issues...but that does not explain why immigration is hardly a new thing BUT the explosion of gang violence in recent years is certainly off the curve.
We have had illegal immigrants for years, but now everyone is acting like its a new revelation. I guess because we are losing all our jobs to bullshit agreements and we need our jobs now-so people have a renewed interest. I think we care when its in our interest to care.
But regardless its a problem both sides need to get together on ASAP>.
Yes i think there has been a surge in violent illegals who have come here from mexico.
The conservatives have been battling illegal immigration for decades.
It's ALWAYS in our interest to enforce our laws.
Finally, you're absolutely correct, it's a problem that everyone needs to get together on.
Here's the problem. Liberals want a one world government and open borders, Big business wants cheap labor.
Only true conservatives believe in shutting this shit down and that does NOT include our president, or john mclame, or ANY of the dem candidates.
Duncan Hunter for '08
I do not want a one world government or open borders nor do any liberals I know. I think your "liberals" that you blame for everything are as fictious as Spiderman.
Well I think its like this- there are people that talk about the impoverished conditions and so on, which I get...but nothing seems to suit certain people as far as a solution. ANYTHING short of an open border does seem to become an argument with many on the left. I would say that most liberal people I know deny that they want open borders but then describe something close to it. What we call it is not as important as what that plan LOOKS like practically.
And when you ask how we can absorb the expense, the answer is often "well look what we fucking spend in Iraq" or something unrelated that doesnt ansswer the question really.
The expense IS significant. To absorb it WOULD be like a mandate to provide for all. At what point is our country our priority? Thats the core question really.
Now I understand the poverty issue but fail to see froma humanitarian point of view how exploitation and pseudoslavery are good either.
I think there's the problem, that there are people who honestly want "status quo". They dont want a solution, but inaction IS an action if there is a price tag and it perpetuates the problem.
That point is now.
Lily you're exactly right.
Think about it like this too. If they can come here and send money home, the mexican govt. isn't forced to make any changes to improve their own economy for the poor, they also don't have to worry as much about a peasant uprising, etc.
I hear this new president is doing some positive things, but i'm sure his admin. is just as corrupt as all the previous ones.
My plan is simple, shut the border down and eliminate the minimum wage in the U.S. This plan gives entry level jobs to Americans who need them, and forces Mexico to fix their own problems internally.
Well Rhino as you know I try to read BOTH sides and there were a number of articles from "your peeps" about some issues I hadn't really considered. One was the impact on Mexican families, and the second was what you mentioned which is that there is no constructive "impetus" for better conditions where they are. If its a compassion matter, why not go there and organize/advocate to improve conditions? In fact, the liberal mindset is almost ALWAYS to keep people where they are when helping.Especially kids.
Does anyone say let's address poverty in the Bronx by moving everyone to the Hamptons? Hell no.
Further, there's little incentive to do things legally, and regardless of the big picture I think its a problem when people live in the shadows from their end (safety,etc.) AND from our end.
I have to say that this is another one of those head scratcher issues for me. Better women are raped but cant report it, or people are not paid as promised by some lanscape guy that says "what are ya gonna do?" I dont see the humanitarian argument really.
I try, but keep coming back to the need to do something here.
again, i agree with the aurorans on this issue, but i'd go a step further--shutting the border down and eliminating the minimum wage are part of it, but it's also re-envisioning our welfare system so that it facilitates americans filling the jobs that would have gone to illegals.
for decades, sociologists and policy analysts have been lamenting the spatial mismatch between available labor and available jobs--low wage jobs are where the american poor are not.
by recalibrating our welfare system to one that primarily provides support services to those with low-wage employment (transportation, child care and moving expense benefits), we can actually fill these jobs with americans in a way that won't be instantly devastating to the businesses that have been exploiting illegal aliens and hurting american workers.
Yeah. What he said.
lily, the only problem with going there and organizing etc. is that it's against the law in mexico for foriegners to do anything like that, and from what i understand they're serious about that.
If things are going to change, they have to change from within and if we're going to help them it's got to be by denying them access to our labor markets and deporting them immediately. Especially the gang banger types.
On that note, i also think we should penalize these people more in the deportation process. Like for example why do we bus them across the border and then drop them off in a border town? why not fly them to the southern most part of mexico and drop them there? make em work to get back in!
"but it's also re-envisioning our welfare system so that it facilitates americans filling the jobs that would have gone to illegals."
Donsk, wasn't that the crux of what Gingrich accomplished in the nineties?
Welfare was given a time limit of five years, child support efforts were stepped up, child care credits were given and the whole "welfare to work" program was launched.
Further, there is funding for all kinds of things from job training to transportation. True, many fall through the cracks or there are no child care providers etc. BUT what you are talking about has been done, no?
I argue that its the people just slightly above who are suffering right now, people who dont get the child care subsidy BUT work at minimum wage jobs.
And ont he subject of minimum wage, welfare reform is a huge reason why the minimum wage has not been increased because part of the reform hinges on the availability of low paying jobs.
Gingrich would probably say that the problem is that welfare reform did not address immigration and wage suppression.
You cant have a welfare tow ork program for unskilled people but have Mexicans fill all those low end jobs.
Rhino to your point about organizing- thats probably true but the point has also been made that in a patriarchal society its not helpful to have the menfolk leave town.
eb, what's been done to this point in terms of welfare reform is wholly inadequate. we have a system that still has one foot in the entitlement pool and the other in the sludge of an ill-conceived welfare-to-work program.
i'm talking about something much more radical--the govt moving willing poor people out of the inner cities and into exurbs, and creating enough incentives to ensure that people actually take the govt up on the offer.
i advocate for programs that provide financial support to develop child care businesses in these areas, as well as innovative transportation services (lots of them already exist on the black market).
admittedly, welfare policy is not my area of expertise, but from what i recall, TANF and other programs fail to provide real incentives for people to have productive work, and we don't address the spatial mismatch between jobs and people anywhere in our current policies.
First, the suburbs dont want them! People move to suburbs to escape the poor which is one reason why integrated planning (as Duany or Hylton would advocate) is so often rejected. Probably a whole other topic that wouldnt fit in here.
Second, the incentive mechanism is a punitive model. Do this, or this happens. And like I said, its no accident that the minimum wage stagnation coincides with workfare.
Sure, there are ways to extend the five years and I have participated in such hearings (I worked with welfare admin for years)BUT a key difference is the entitlement piece. Sure, you can show that there weren't enough child care centers, etc. to work. It gives a place for flexibility, but it erases the expectation that you are poor therefore...you get a,b,c.
Now we want to see what you have done, your efforts.
This is a HUGE departure from what many,especially liberals, feel about the poor in America and giving versus empowering people. Handouts dont empower, proactive movement empowers. Who wants generational welfare? That was always absurd!
The Gingrich measures sought to take the burden from "how can we get people off welfare" to "what are YOU doing?"-client based, not system based.
I never said that the welfare reform was perfect, far from it,but people have to consider the relationship to immigration and wages and that poor people dont live in a vacuum.
There are child care center grants and pretty accessible resources to help increase child care. I am aware of most of them regionally at least. There are also grants for home based care, alot out there. Some not even utilized. Outreach maybe?
Transportation is always a barrier, but at least in some rural areas cooperative arrangements have been successful, such as pairing the disabled with senior services or meals on wheels.
I have studied welfare barriers as a planning issue- in an integrated community, people could cluster by services or seniors could walk to a store. Affordable housing could be comingled with commercial, and so on. The problem is the suburban model, no welfare reform will fix that.
Poor people will always have trouble getting that ride to a hearing thirty miles away. Seniors will always have trouble shopping...
Post a Comment